4.7 Article

Treatment option for sperm- or oocyte-related fertilization failure: assisted oocyte activation following diagnostic heterologous ICSI

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 2237-2241

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dei029

关键词

calcium ionophore; fertilization failure; heterologous ICSI; oocyte activation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Failed fertilization occurs in 2-3% of ICSI cycles and is mainly due to lack of oocyte activation. Heterologous ICSI of patient's sperm in mouse oocytes allows discrimination between sperm- and oocyte-related aetiologies of activation failure. Assisted oocyte activation (AOA) by Ca-ionophore treatment can initiate fertilization in subsequent therapeutic ICSI. We report on diagnosis and clinical treatment in 17 patients with previously failed fertilization. METHODS: Sperm from patients were injected into mature mouse oocytes. Activation capacity was assessed by 2-cell formation (mouse oocyte activation test, MOAT). When no activation occurred, it was assumed that the spermatozoon was deficient; otherwise an oocyte-related factor was suspected. In a subsequent ICSI cycle, AOA was done by ICSI with CaCl2 followed by a Ca2+ ionophore exposure. Fertilization was checked 16-20 h later. Embryo transfer was on day 2 or 3. RESULTS: MOAT showed sperm-related activation deficiency in six globozoospermic patients and two patients with extreme oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. One patient with small sperm acrosomes had a normal activation percentage. In eight other patients, the MOAT revealed a relatively normal activation capacity of the sperm, indicating an oocyte-related defect. After AOA, fertilization rates were 77 and 71% in the sperm- and oocyte-related groups respectively. Five pregnancies were achieved in the globozoospermia group and three in cases of oocyte-related activation failure. CONCLUSIONS: Assisted oocyte activation enables normal fertilization and pregnancy in sperm- and oocyte-related fertilization failure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据